Bills would add self-defense rights
Rep. Ed Robb, R-Columbia, aims to clarify the right to use deadly force.
Published Feb. 28, 2006
Next time that rude kid jumps in front of you in line at Plaza 900, make sure you've got your concealed weapon ready — it might soon be within your rights to shoot him.
Or not.
Although some might consider line-jumping a crime, it will take a lot more than that under bills in the Missouri legislature for people to use deadly force to protect themselves.
"I think the real issue here is to clarify once and for all under what circumstances a person can use deadly force to defend themselves," said Rep. Ed Robb, R-Columbia, co-sponsor of one of several bills in the legislature regarding self-defense. "If you're sleeping in bed at night and there's an intruder in your house, do you have an idea what their intent actually is? I think we should err on the side of the individual who might be harmed."
Robb's bill in the House of Representatives is similar to a bill proposed by Sen. John Cauthorn, R-Mexico.
Senate Bill 571 states, "Defense is modified so that any crime, instead of excluding a class A felony or murder, can be 'justifiable and not criminal' when necessary in an emergency to avoid injury and when the situation is not the fault of the person committing the crime."
The bill protects people who use deadly force when they are fearful of death, serious physical injury, rape, sodomy or kidnapping.
It also covers deadly force against a person who unlawfully enters a private home or car.
The proposed bills would remove a person's "duty to retreat" in the face of an attacker before using deadly force in self-defense.
It also would give the victims immunity from prosecution related to injuries sustained by the attacker when they defend themselves.
Ashley Varner, an MU graduate and spokesperson for the National Rifle Association's Institute for Legislative Action, said the organization has found self-defense laws to be inadequate to protect law-abiding citizens.
"In each of the states where we have proposed the stand-your-ground or castle doctrine law, it is because there is a loophole or clause saying the person has a duty to retreat if they are being attacked or a loophole saying the victim can be prosecuted or sued if they cause harm to the attacker while trying to defend themselves," Varner said.
Robb cited the example of an 87-year-old grandmother who fired four shots through the door at a would-be intruder.
Three of the shots hit the intruder and killed him.
"The question has always been how far a homeowner or a family can go to protect themselves," Robb said. "I'm not sure there's a lot of consistency in that area under the law."
Brian Siedel, a spokesman for the Brady Campaign to Prevent Gun Violence, said his group is against the proposed changes in gun laws.
"We clearly oppose the 'shoot first' bills throughout the country because we don't think it is a wise policy to have people shooting first and asking questions later," Siedel said. "The self-defense laws of this country are not broken and do not need to be modified or fixed. While I have not read the actual bill, they typically allow someone to shoot someone else in public under circumstances that are questionable where people could retreat with no one getting hurt."